Loading...
09-29-09 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes a. June 22, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Front Yard Setback Requirements for Decks a. Applicant: City of Golden Valley b. Purpose: To allow decks to be located within 30 feet of the front yard property line in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1) 3. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding the Number of Street Curb Cut Access Points a. Applicant: City of Golden Valley b. Purpose: To limit the number of street curb cut access points to one per parcel in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1) 4. Short Recess 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 6. Other Business a. Planning Department Project Update 7. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72.hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TrY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of altflrnate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22, 2009 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, June 22,2009. Vice Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Developm Ma Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Chair Keysser was absen 1. Approval of Minutes June 8, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Eck, seconded by McCarty and motiOrlibar~i\PdUnarl.i~pusly to approve the minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Condi:tional<U 9405 Medicine Lake Road - CU..67 A1 ermit- Amendment #1 - Applicant: Winner Gas/Convenience Store, George Kabalan Address: 9405 Medicine Lake Road Purpose: To .~..I..low the~pplicant to rent U-Haul trucks at his existing location in the Co~~\Prcial zoning district Grimes referred to a I map and noted that this property is at the intersection of Highway 199 andrvt\Pd e Lake Road. He explained that the applicant would like to amend th$ti,?~.y~~ nal Use Permit for this property to allow him to rent two U- Haul trucks ong with>hIS gas station, car wash and convenience store. Grimes explained that the original gas station did not require a Conditional Use Permit. In 1995 When thepwner wanted to install his car wash, the City required him to obtain a Conditioflal4'~e Permit. He referred to the existing Conditional Use Permit and the site plan and showed the area where the applicant would like to park the rental trucks. Grimes stated that he would like the trucks to be located in the two furthest west parking spaces behind the building and not where the applicant is proposing in order to allow better access to the car wash. Grimes stated that the applicant has been renting U-Haul trucks for a couple of years. However it was only recently brought to his attention because there were several trucks parked along an easement area which was supposed to be posted "no parking" according to the original Conditional Use Permit. He added that he allowed the applicant to continue Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22, 2009 Page 2 renting two trucks during the time it took to go through this Conditional Use Permit amendment process and upon visiting the site this evening he noticed that there are currently two trucks and two trailers parked on this lot which is disappointing because that was not his agreement with the applicant. Grimes referred to the site plan and stated that originally the City required 15 parking spaces on this site for the gas station/convenience store. He stated that he did a recalculation of the parking spaces needed based on current parking requirements and feels 7 parking spaces will meet the needs of this property. He said he..~()esn't4~ink the number of parking spaces will be an issue however cars should not be\parked in\the access easement area and the "no parking" signs should be installE:)d perJhe origiil"')al Conditional Use Permit agreement. Grimes stated that another issue he is concerned about is thenonfoconfor~il1g signage on the property. He explained that the City's sign code ad~..inistratRr Rog~r.~cCabe has been dealing with the property owner regarding the amount of sIgnageon the property. Therefore he is recommending as a condition of a.pptrov~1 thatthesignage on the property be brought into conformance by August 31,2009. Kluchka asked Grimes to clarify what the sign.probl.em is. Grimes showed the Commissioners photos of the site and stated th~t the applicant probably has double the amount of signage allowed. Waldhau~efa~k.~\~t}he allowed amount of signage. Grimes said he doesn't know whattheallow~d am unt of signage is for this property because some of the signs may.pe "grandfath~red" in. He added that the sign code is not part of the zoning code and syggestedthat the applicant meet with Roger McCabe to come up with a sign plan in order to bring his property into conformance. Grimes reiterated that if the~pp'Icant rents two U-Haul trucks or trailers he doesn't think this proposal will be anissue.lf however there starts to be more trucks or trailers on the property there could be issues with the access to the car wash and the un-striped parking area in the back of thel:>l,li'din~f.Kluchka asked how many available parking spaces would be available for rental activity. Grimes referred to the site plan and pointed out that there are 4 parking$p~c.~sin the front of the building and 11 spaces behind the building. He reiteratedth feelstble parking requirement for this property can drop from 15 spaces to X spaces\leaii.m~ them with 8 spaces more than what is required. Kluchka asked how many spaces.M1ouf€J be used for the rental trucks. Grimes stated that the applicant is askiri~.for perrmission to have 2 rental trucks on his property. Waldhauser asked if some of the spac~si;pehind the building are not usable for parking because of the need to access the car wash. Grimes said it is his understanding that the spaces in the back haven't been striped because there really isn't a need for them. Waldhauser asked why it would be a problem to allow the applicant to have more than 2 rental trucks on this property since they have enough parking spaces. Grimes said the Planning Commission could recommend that the applicant be allowed to have more than 2 rental trucks however he is concerned at this point that more trucks would be parked on this property than are allowed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22,2009 Page 3 McCarty referred to the signage requirements and asked about the City's recourse on businesses that don't comply with the sign code requirements. Grimes stated that it would be considered a misdemeanor violation of the City Code however staff likes to work with people first to try to bring their properties into conformance if that doesn't work than the matter could be taken to court. McCarty asked if the owner has been approached by the City regarding the non- conforming sign issues. Grimes said it is his understanding that Roger McQ.abe has spoken with the property owner regarding the signage at this property. Waldhauser referred to the easement on the east side of the parking lot and askeq if landscaping or planting can be done in easement areas. Grimes said thatplants.i~an be placed in easement areas. Kluchka asked Grimes what part of the City Code or wQat departm s with the striping of parking lots. Grimes said the Planning and Pu_liq Wo~~s 0 rtments would work with applicants regarding the striping of thei~ipark' IOt.KIOchka asked if it would be appropriate to require as a condition of approval:that thikingIOt be appropriately striped to encourage good circulation and access to the ca~"vash. George Kabalan, Applicant, stated that.he has parkedJ,.J,.l0laul trucks on this lot and in the easement area for 2 years now and no One h i.d anything. He agreed that Mr. Grimes allowed him to keep renting 2 trucksoUring Conditional Use Permit amendment process and that the 2 trailers M~I<Grimes saw on the property earlier this evening belong to an employee who wasn't aw?trethattnere were only supposed to be 2 trucks on the property. He added that thail will be removed in the morning. He stated that he would like to be allowed ent trUe~s to help him improve his business. He referred to the signage issues and sai would work with Roger McCabe to come up with a signage plan. Waldhauser a he applicant if he has spoken with Mr. McCabe in the past. Kabalan said heiQa dhauser asked about the "no parking" signs that are supposed to be:l~cated st access road. Kabalan said there are no signs regarding parkingi?tt.all 08 his property. Waldhauser noted that the requirement regarding the installati~nof'.'nopwking" signs pre-dates this current property owner. Kluchka asked th~ applicant if it would be helpful or useful to him to have more than 2 rental trucks.~abaIan said it would help him get more business if he could have more trucksibl..lt he ""ould do whatever the City allows him to do. Grimes askeo the applicant about the size of trucks he would be renting. Kabalan said the longest truck he would rent will be 17 feet. Waldhauser referred to the 5 parking spaces behind the building that aren't routinely used and asked if that is where people drive to access the car wash. Kabalan said he would be willing to re-strip the parking lot in order to make parking, circulation and access easier. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22, 2009 Page 4 Cera asked the applicant to describe the rental business. Kabalan said he would have 2 trucks and people can rent them for "in town" or local use. He said there would not be customers dropping of trucks from different locations. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Kimberly Vedo, representing Hillsboro Court Apartments, 2911 Hillsboro Ave. N., New Hope, said she opposes this proposed use because she doesn't think it's..~ttractive to the community particularly with the improvements other property owners i e have made and this use will not enhance the community at all. She said th icall -Haul dealerships are found in communities that have a lot of economic d e iss . She added that this corner with the gas station and liquor store is alre dy nQt tive and a U-Haul dealer won't help the situation. Waldhauser asked Vedo if her concern is just the appearance of thei~..Haul vehicles or something else. Vedo said she thinks the U-Haul truckswQuld reflect negatively on the neighborhood and would give people a bad perception of thear~(11. She added that a U- Haul dealership is not something she would conSider to be. an attractive attribute when marketing her apartments. McCarty stated that the U-Haul dealers8ip/cou b an attractive amenity to the apartment residents. Vedo said that shegen IYiqQesn't encourage her residents to move. Waldhauser questioned if it vvQuldm~~~a difference from an appearance stand point if the U-Haul trucks were lo~~tedb~hin~the gas station. Vedo said that would be preferable to having them in the fron~pr on t@e side. She added that there are just certain things that don't necessarily reflect positively on a community such as pawn shops, U-Hauls, check cashing stores, tobaycQ.shopsi~tc. and those types of things fall into neighborhoods that are not as desirable ~.~... sh~~.2LlldJike hers to be. Grimes referred to the location map and reiterated where he isrElg~mmending the trucks be parked. He said he thinks it will be hard for peoele to~~~ th~. trucks if they are parked where he is recommending and not in the easementare~,.. H~ said he thinks the signage on the site is more of an issue. Ec asked\{Eldo.VI(ho she is referring to when she says "we". Vedo said she is speaking fo ownel"i~ndpartnership group for the property. Eck asked if she is speaking on beha the r ....... ters or if any of the renters have complained. Vedo said she is not speakin alf of the renters and she hasn't had any complaints yet, but typically she hears from renters about issues after the fact. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. McCarty asked the applicant how long he has had U-Haul trucks at his location. Kabalan said he has been renting the U-Haul trucks for two years. He added that he realizes the Sinclair station across the street is newer but that is not what is important. What is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22,2009 Page 5 important is how he serves people in the community. He said he willing to find a solution regarding the signage and he is willing to park the trucks in the specified location but he feels no one from the apartments will be able to see the trucks. Waldhauser said doesn't have too much concern about this proposal except for the signage issues. She said the appearance of this property is important because it is an entrance to Golden Valley. She noted that there is landscaping in the front and trees on the highway side of the property however she wishes there were trees between this property and the McDonald's next door to the east. She said there se~mstOb~~dequate parking even with a couple of trucks parked in the back. She added that it would.be nice to have the parking clarified with "no parking" signs in the easement area and striping to indicate where cars should go. Schmidgall said he doesn't want to cripple a thriving businesS but this prop~rty is visually chaotic and he is disappointed that it has been out of complian~~ wit gn ordinance for 14 years and the "no parking" signs haven't been in d i 4 ye . He would really like to see this property brought into compliance with nditional Use Permit. He said he would also like to limit the number oLU-Haul in order to keep the visual chaos to a minimum. McCarty agreed that the number of rentartruck~shoUlqb~limited to 2 and added that the City also needs to do its part to enforce the conditions in the Conditional Use Permit. Cera also agreed with the idea of limiting the number of trucks to 2 and suggested a condition be placed on the approval that t0~ property should be brought into compliance before the proposal goes to the City Coypcil; 0ka said he agrees that progress toward sign compliance should be sho~f1; Waldhauser reviewed the <pitions in original Conditional Use Permit. She stated that the suggested new90nditio~s for this amendment request are as follows: 1) The parking spaces on thepro~erty S0all be clearly designated and striped and the two spaces for the rental trucks should be clearly marked; 2) All signage shall meet the City's sign code requirern~ntsby no later than August 31, 2009 and 3) "no parking" signs shall be installed Fir~ Marshall, along the west side of the shared driveway adjacent to TH 16 n thal'lAugust 31,2009. KlUQ0ka sug tedthey add a condition regarding landscape screening of the parking area for adjacent properties. McCarty said he would be in favor of requiring landscape screeningifJ0.ere were adjacent residential properties but it doesn't seem fair to put the landscape cost burden on this applicant. The Commissioners agreed. McCarty asked about the process for revoking a Conditional Use Permit if the conditions are not met. Grimes said staff typically tries to work with property owners before revoking their Conditional Use Permits. He added that for a Conditional Use Permit to be revoked staff would have to receive a complaint or notice some gross violation of the Conditional Use Permit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22,2009 Page 6 McCarty said he is concerned that the deadline of August 31 to bring the property into compliance is arbitrary and won't mean anything to the applicant or the City so he'd like to see some progress on the site before the applicant is allowed to go to the City Council. Cera agreed he would like to see some progress before the proposal gets approved by the City Council. Grimes stated that the applicant has been working with Roger McCabe to bring his property into conformance with the sign code. Waldhauser asked if the sign code deals with aesthetic issues or if signage is only based on allowing a certain amount. Grimes said there are no design standarq$fbt . .ns other than in the 1-394 Mixed Use zoning district. Kluchka asked the Commissioners for their opinion about how be to the rest of the neighborhood. Schmidgall said he is happ recommendation for the location for the rental trucks. Kluchka suggested that the applicant be required to subrmit.a revised showing the parking lot striping, designated truck rental spaces .andthe location of any signs. Grimes agreed that would be a good idea. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carri~d unanimously to recommend approval of an amended Cql1ditional Use~~r!'Tiit at 9405 Medicine Lake Road to allow the applicant to rent U-Ha is existing location in the Commercial zoning district with th~:foll~wl 1. A new site plan updating th.. 9/1195. site plan all be submitted and be made a part of this permit. The two equ ntparking spaces shall be the two spaces south of the store and closest tOiTH 16, There shall be a total of 9 parking spaces for customers, employees anq ipment display. The parking spaces on the property shall be clearly designated striped and the two spaces for the rental trucks shall be clearly marked 2. The propertYrn.ay b dasia gas/convenience store with one automated car wash bay. Also, up t 0 ks or trailers may be displayed for rent on the site in the 10cationiCliitified bove Condition No.1. 3. All si g the site will meet the requirements of the City's sign code by no later than AU94~ ,2009. 4.'!fi4o parking!'. signs shall be installed per the Fire Marshal along the west side of the shared drive'tVay adjacent to TH 169 by no later than August 31,2009. 5. All other a~plicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 6. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 22, 2009 Page 7 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka reported on the District 281 Divestiture Committee meeting he attended where they discussed options for what to do with seven school district properties. Waldhauser reported on a 1,000 friends of MN meeting she attended where they discussed landscaping and redeveloping old properties and what other have done in regard to landscaping. 5. Other Business McCarty asked about proposed new language regarding decks, porches, stoops, etc. Grimes stated that staff is still working on the proposed language ahdwill bring it to a future Planning Commission meeting. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8: 15 pm. Hey Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: September 23, 2009 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Proposed Ordinance Allowing Decks to be located within 30 feet of the Front Yard Property Line in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District Currently, open front porches are allowed to be located within 30 feet of the front yard property line in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District. Open front porches are understood by the Building and Inspections Department to be unscreened, and covered by a roof structure. Recently, several proposals have been made that show uncovered porches, or decks, located up to 30 feet from the front property line. Language in the code currently prohibits this. As homes in Golden Valley age, the City is seeing an increase in the remodeling of front entry areas to homes. Because landing areas over 25 square feet must adhere to setback requirements, uncovered platforms larger than 25 square feet must be located at least 35 feet away from the front property line. Staff has agreed that the impacts of uncovered platforms ("decks") in the front yard are similar to those of covered platforms ("open front porches"). Therefore, staff recommends amending City Code to allow decks to be allowed to be located within 30 feet from the front property line, and requests that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. Attachments Section 11.21, Subdivision 11 of City Code (2 Pages) 9 11.21 *Subdivision 11. Principal Structures Subject to the modifications in Subdivision 12, below, principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-1 zoning district. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to twenty-five (25) square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be thirty-five (35) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Decks and 9Qpen front porches, with no screens, may be built to within thirty (30) feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. a. In the case of a corner lot, the side with the narrower street frontage shall be considered the front of the lot. 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty percent (20%) of the lot depth. 3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between any part of a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-12-04 a. In the case of lots having a width of one hundred (100) feet or greater, the side setbacks for structures fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be fifteen (15) feet. The side setbacks for any structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall be fifteen (15) feet plus one-half (0.5) foot for each additional one (1) foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over fifteen (15) feet; b. In the case of lots having a width greater than sixty-five (65) feet and less than one hundred (100) feet, the side setbacks for structures fifteen (15) feet or less in height shall be twelve and one-half (12.5) feet. The side setbacks for any structure greaterthan fifteen (15) feet in height shall be twelve and one-half (12.5) feet plus one-half (0.5) foot for each additional one (1) foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over fifteen (15) feet; c. In the case of lots having a width of sixty-five (65) feet or less, the side setbacks for structures fifteen (15) feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be ten percent (10%) of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be twenty percent (20%) of the lot Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 2 9 11.21 width (up to twelve and one-half (12.5) feet) The side setback for any structure greater than fifteen (15) feet in height along the north or west side shall be ten percent (10%) of the lot width and along the south or east side twenty percent (20%) of the lot width plus one-half (0.5) foot for each additional two (2) feet (or portion thereof) of height over fifteen (15) feet. d. For any new construction, whether a new house, addition or replacement through a tear-down, any wall longer than thirty-two (32) feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of at least two (2) feet in depth, for at least eight (8) feet in length, for every thirty-two (32) feet of wall. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the rear yard setback, use the longer lot line. To determine the side yard setback, use the shortest lot line. Source: Ordinance No. 292, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-12-04 B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District with a building height exceeding twenty-eight (28) feet for pitched roof houses and twenty-five (25) feet for flat roof houses. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 C. Structure Width Requirements. No principal structure shall be less than twenty-two (22) feet in width as measured from the exterior of the exterior walls. D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty (30) inches into a required setback. E. Decks. Decks over eight (8) inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure-;--in the side and rear yards. Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 2 lIey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: September 23,2009 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Proposed Ordinance Restricting Driveways and Street Access in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District The Public Works Department has requested that a provision be added to the Zoning Code limiting the number of street curb cut access points in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District to one access point per parcel. The Public Works Department has expressed concern over the increasing number of property owners requesting additional curb access points, often at the expense of the City. Driveway access is currently regulated by City policy. By codifying the guidelines, the City is able to enforce standard procedures throughout the community. It also allows residents wishing to receive additional street curb cut access points the ability to petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals, rather than informally lobbying the City Council. The proposed language is written to allow more than one street curb cut access point on a parcel if several extenuating circumstances apply. Those exceptions include the existence of a "horseshoe driveway," the need to access a legally constructed accessory structure on the property or a documented need due to a physical disability. Staff and the City Attorney have reviewed this proposal, and recommend amending City Code to restrict driveways and street access in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District. Staff requests that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. Attachments Section 11.21, Subdivision 19 of City Code (1 Page) 9 11.21 *Subdivision 19. Paved Area, Driveways and Street Access Requirements Paved areas in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District, include those constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers, and are governed by the following provisions: A. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005, shall be paved. B. Setbacks. Paved areas shall be setback three (3) feet from a side yard property line, except for shared driveways used by multiple property owners pursuant to a private easement. Source: Ordinance No. 415, 2nd Series Effective Date: 02-13-09 C. Coverage. No more than forty percent (40%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 *Renumbering Source Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 D. Street Access. Each lot may have only one (1) street curb cut access. Lots with the following situations may have up to two (2) street curb cut accesses (cost for the additional street curb cut access point shall be assessed to the property owner): 1. A lot that contains two (2) legally constructed garages. 2. 8...Qbysical disability of a person residing on the property requires additional driveway access. 3. A lot that contains an existing horseshoe driveway. Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 1 Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: September 23, 2009 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Planning Department Project Update The Planning Department serves as the project facilitator for several large-scale initiatives that impact the City. This report provides an update of the major planning-related projects currently underway in Golden Valley. Comprehensive Plan Since 2006, the City has been in the process of creating a formal update to its comprehensive plan. In early 2009, this update had received formal Planning Commission and City Council approval. The plan was then submitted to the Metropolitan Council for formal review. The Metropolitan Council has asked the City to make several adjustments to the Plan. In addition to several typographical changes, required adjustments include; . Streamlining of demographical forecast data throughout the plan. . Providing additional housing density information. . Creating a section of the plan wherein the City's implementing regulations, such as PUD ordinances, water quality regulations, etc., are defined. . Providing more detailed data concerning future land uses in the City. . Providing more detailed data concerning the City's officially designated redevelopment areas. . Extended traffic forecasting data. The Planning Department is currently working to implement these changes into the comprehensive plan. The plan is anticipated to be resubmitted to the Metropolitan Council by mid-October. Douglas Drive The Planning Department is leading a land use study of the Douglas Drive corridor. This study was initiated in the summer of 2008, and is expected to be completed by the end of 2009. The study focuses on long term land uses in and around the corridor, as well as future traffic projections. In August, an open house was held to allow property owners a chance to view information generated by the study. Many visual graphics were displayed which showed future roadway configurations. One graphic illustrated the long-term possibility of eliminating access to various side streets along Douglas Drive, favoring a controlled access point at Olympia Street. This graphic was based upon future traffic projections as well as long-term land use assumptions. Several residents have reacted unfavorably to this alternative. In response, the City has asked engineering consultants to re-examine this, and other future roadway alternatives. The City will send a letter to residents within a half-mile radius of the Douglas Drive corridor clarifying elements in the study, and offering the opportunity to enroll in a Douglas Drive Corridor Study list serve. Information pertaining to the Douglas Drive Corridor Study may be accessed at http://www.ci.Qolden-vallev.mn.us/zoninQ/DouQlasDrive/index.html. Coinciding with the long term land use study of Douglas Drive is the City's immediate desire to construct a sidewalk along the east side of the roadway between Duluth Street and the Luce Line Trail. In August, $1,050,000 in funding was allocated to the City of Golden Valley from Transit for Livable Communities (TLC). This funding is part of the federal Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program, from which a portion of the corridor study was also funded. TLC supports the City's proposal to construct a sidewalk along Douglas Drive, but believes that the City must also implement other aspects of the 'complete street' philosophy into the design. As a stipulation to receiving the funds, TLC has required that Golden Valley reduce the number of traffic lanes along Douglas Drive to two through lanes and one center turn lane between Medicine Lake Road and Golden Valley Road. In doing so, TLC also requires that two one-directional bike lanes are marked on the road. Additionally, TLC requires that the speed limit on Douglas Drive north of Golden Valley be reduced to 35 miles per hour. Staff has determined that the successful completion of the abovementioned requirements would exceed $1,050,000. Staff has been working with the City Council to determine what City-initiated funding mechanisms would supplement TLC funding. The Council has discussed the possibility of implementing a franchise fee to absorb the cost of moving overhead utilities underground as well as the possible obtainment of easements from adjacent property owners. Council has directed staff to develop a plan to restripe Douglas Drive to three lanes, as well as construct the east sidewalk. Staff is working in coordination with Hennepin County, TLC, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the City of Crystal to ensure a well- designed plan is implemented. Construction on this project is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2010. Bottineau Boulevard Transitway Hennepin County is currently studying the feasibility of constructing a light rail transit (LRT) line within the Bottineau Boulevard/West Broadway Avenue corridor between Downtown Minneapolis and the Arbor Lakes Shopping Center in Maple Grove. During the course of the study, it was determined that limited right-of-way along densely-developed West Broadway Avenue in North Minneapolis prevents light rail transit tracks from being constructed in that area. Alternative locations were sought for the line as it enters Downtown. FOUR ALIGNMENT OPTIONS FOR ROBBINSDALE AND MINNEAPOLIS .....-~ ,- I,WiWI, ~ · -:r:: flI ~obbinsdale '" l~ ~ " ~al 11--- I T'" .. ~ \I'j~ Golden\Ja __- ,.. ,- "" ... .J This figure illustrates the four alignment options currently under consideration for transit line. Option D1, currently the preferred alternative, would route the line out of the Bottineau Boulevard corridor in Robbinsdale and duplex it onto the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad corridor. This option enters Golden Valley at the Mary Hills Nature Area and continues through Theodore Wirth Park. Ultimately, the line would connect to Olson Memorial Highway, where it would continue into Downtown. For this alignment, a possible location for a transit station has been identified at Golden Valley Road. Other alternatives include bringing light rail through either Penn or Lowry Avenues, or ending the light rail line in North Minneapolis and continuing a bus rapid transit line (BRT) into Downtown via West Broadway Avenue. These three alternatives (D2, D3 and D4) would add significant travel time to the line, and are therefore considered inferior to the Golden Valley option. The earliest possible construction of the Bottineau Boulevard Transitway would occur in 2015. Preliminary public meetings have been scheduled to introduce these concepts to area residents and to gather public feedback. No public meeting will take place in Golden Valley. The nearest public meeting will take place on Wednesday. September 30 from 6-8 pm at the Crvstal City Hall. Hennepin County is also currently involved in the Southwest Transitway LRT corridor. The Southwest Transitway is expected to extend from Downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie. Construction on the Southwest Transitway is expected to be initiated prior to the Bottineau Transitway, possibly starting in 2012. More information on the Southwest LRT corridor can be found at http://www.southwesttransitwav.orQ/. Community Development The City has extended its contract with Hennepin County and has agreed to participate in the Active Living Hennepin Communities until December 31, 2010. In return, Hennepin County has agreed to reimburse the City $5,067 for staff time and other expenses. Active living is a movement wherein physical activity is incorporated into citizens' daily routines. The Planning Department will provide insight into incorporating development guidelines into city codes which foster elements of active living. The City's interdepartmental "Green Team," chaired by Planning and Development Director Mark Grimes, continues to search for innovative ways in which environmentally friendly applications can be incorporated into city practice and policy. Currently, the Green Team is identifying ways in which the Zoning Code can address and regulate wind energy generators. As a result of the Green Team's work, several other amendments to the Zoning Code have been proposed, including adding provisions to address rainwater collection and storage barrels as well as photovoltaic devices. Green Team-initiated ordinances are expected to be formally presented to the Planning Commission in November.